BARACK Obama in his inaugural speech promised to “roll back the spectre of a warming planet.” In this context, it is worth contemplating a passage from his book ‘Dreams from My Father’. It reveals a lot about the way we view the world’s problems.
Obama is in Kenya and wants to go on a safari. His Kenyan sister Auma chides him for behaving like a neo-colonialist. “Why should all that land be set aside for tourists when it could be used for farming? These wazungu care more about one dead elephant than they do for a hundred black children.” Although he ends up going on safari, Obama has no answer to her question. That anecdote has parallels with the current preoccupation with global warming. Many people — including America’s new President — believe that global warming is the pre-eminent issue of our time, and that cutting CO2 emissions is one of the most virtuous things we can do.
To stretch the metaphor a little, this seems like building ever-larger safari parks instead of creating more farms to feed the hungry.
Make no mistake: global warming is real, and it is caused by manmade CO2 emissions. The problem is that even global, draconian, and hugely costly CO2 reductions will have virtually no impact on the temperature by mid-century. Instead of ineffective and costly cuts, we should focus much more of our good climate intentions on dramatic increases in R&D for zero-carbon energy, which would fix the climate towards mid-century at low cost. But, more importantly for most of the planet’s citizens, global warming simply exacerbates existing problems.
Consider malaria. Models shows global warming will increase the incidence of malaria by about 3% by the end of the century, because mosquitoes are more likely to survive when the world gets hotter. But malaria is much more strongly related to health infrastructure and general wealth than it is to temperature. Rich people rarely contract malaria or die from it; poor people do.
Strong carbon cuts could avert about 0.2% of the malaria incidence in a hundred years. The other option is simply to prioritise eradication of malaria today. It would be relatively cheap and simple, involving expanded distribution of insecticide-treated bed nets, more preventive treatment for pregnant women, increased use of the maligned pesticide DDT, and support for poor nations that cannot afford the best new therapies.
Tackling nearly 100% of today’s malaria problem would cost just one-sixtieth of the price of the Kyoto Protocol. Put another way, for each person saved from malaria by cutting CO2 emissions, direct malaria policies could have saved 36,000. Of course, carbon cuts are not designed only to tackle malaria. But, for every problem that global warming will exacerbate — hurricanes, hunger, flooding — we could achieve tremendously more through cheaper, direct policies today.
For example, adequately maintained levees and better evacuation services, not lower carbon emissions, would have minimised the damage inflicted by Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans. During the 2004 hurricane season, Haiti and the Dominican Republic, both occupying the same island, provided a powerful lesson. In the Dominican Republic, which has invested in hurricane shelters and emergency evacuation networks, the death toll was fewer than ten. In Haiti, which lacks such policies, 2,000 died. Haitians were a hundred times more likely to die in an equivalent storm than Dominicans.
Obama’s election has raised hopes for a massive commitment to carbon cuts and vast spending on renewable energy to save the world — especially developing nations. As Obama’s Kenyan sister might attest, this could be an expensive indulgence. Some believe Obama should follow the lead of the European Union, which has committed itself to the goal of cutting carbon emissions by 20% below 1990 levels within 12 years by using renewable energy. This alone will probably cost more than 1% of GDP.
Even if the entire world followed suit, the net effect would be to reduce global temperatures by one-twentieth of one degree Fahrenheit by the end of the century. The cost could be a staggering $10 trillion.
Most economic models show that the total damage imposed by global warming by the end of the century will be about 3% of GDP. This is not trivial, but nor is it the end of the world. By the end of the century, the United Nations expects the average person to be 1,400% richer than today.
An African safari trip once confronted America’s new president with a question he could not answer: why the rich world prized elephants over African children. Today’s version of that question is: why will richer nations spend obscene amounts of money on climate change, achieving next to nothing in 100 years, when we could do so much good for mankind today for much less money? The world will be watching to hear Obama’s answer.
*************************
Bjorn Lomborg is adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School, is the organiser of the Copenhagen Consensus, and author of ‘The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World’. This article is republished with permission.
Picture of the hut in southern Sudan taken by Sally Warriner.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
bjorn is using is usual tricks.
global warming poses only a tiny risk.
other stuff is very cheap…
you will find Bjorn on the beaches of india, building dams this year and next! PROMISE!
PS: notice the other “adjunct” professor…
and junk it is…
Lomborg makes lots of assertions and imputes a certain motive and outlook to those who want to deal with global warming, assertions only.
He does all this only to present a false dichotomy, i.e. we can’t do both as dealing with global warming is soooooo expensive for soooooooo little benefit. Assertions only.
Jennifer, a few posts back you pointed Lomborg out to me as providing evidence for the superstition you cleave to of only rich countries being able to deal with environmental problems and told me to buy a book of his. Based on the quality of the post above do you really think I should fork out money to buy a copy of the Shkeptical Contortionista.
pps: if someone can come up with another reason of reducing CO2 emissions 8like stopping waste or getting independence from those countries that own the oil..), you might want to mail them to Bjorn.
he has been thinking very hard about this subject for quite a couple of years now, but couldn t come up with anything that makes sense…
Since Canada is now the #1 supplier of oil to the US, energy “independence” is not nearly as high a priority as it used to be.
Jeremy C and sod, please give evidence of where Bjorn Lomborg says we should do “nothing” about global warming or developing other energy sources. I think this is one of your “assertions”.
Also, do you have anything specific to argue about this post, rather than BS summaries of your own predetermined opinions?
Lomborgs metaphor about the tourists and the dead elephant and the hungry children can be further stretched to include a joke that used to go around the safaris. The tourist from the US of A gives the little African boy a dollar and pats him on the head. “And what do you want to be when yoy grow up”, he asks. The little boy says that he thinks he might like to be a tourist.
Lomborg is one of the best writers on climate change. His important contribution is adding context to the debate. His critics often simply insult him instead of engaging his arguments.
Reflections on a mud hut
Looking at that hut, one can only reflect on how many third world households are unable to collect the free, clean, drinking water that lands on their own roof but who then spend a huge amount of time and precious calories in transporting contaminated water from a distant source.
Even in an arid 500mm rainfall zone, that (approx 28m2) roof would receive 14,000 litres each year, if only they had effective guttering and reliable storage. That would amount to 40 litres each day which is about double the volume that is seen on most photos of third world folk fetching water. In many places it would save about two hours of work each day, one of those hours being heavy carrying which requires recovery time.
Add to that the additional time spent collecting the extra firewood needed to boil drinking water and it is clear that about a third of a full time job is wasted in each household due to this problem.
And no, they don’t need a 14,000 litre plastic water tank that costs more than 10 times their annual household income. They wouldn’t even need a 5,000 litre tank that fills up 2.8 times each year. All they need is a 5m3, partial hole in the ground, partially raised wall above ground, a lid, and a durable plastic liner that costs less than one persons annual income.
That would deliver a reliable and continuous 33% return on investment over the life of the plastic liner, even before accounting for the reduced incidence of disease and lost productivity from improved water supply.
This simple addition to the family’s household capital would enable them to maintain a vastly improved water supply and general wellbeing even if climate change were to reduce annual rainfall from 500mm to only 250mm. They would still have the same volume of water that they currently bring from the contaminated source but their lives will still be very much improved and with a great deal more certainty and security.
This is why climate cretinism is such a cruel and expensive joke on humanity. It diverts attention and resources from real problems and trully sustainable solutions.
Ian,
Even if? Climate change doesn’t exist, right?
It seems that most of the African continent receives much less than 250mm (http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/ilri/x5524e/x5524e07.gif). Spare me the argument about a cruel and expensive joke on humanity – if you spent less time on this blog commenting and more time raising funding and awareness on your sustainable solutions, you would be doing much more to save humanity by your own token (hypocrisy abound).
Thomas
Thomas Moore,
Was there one intelligent statement in your last post? I would argue no.
Your link shows mean JANUARY rainfall. Average African annual rainfall is indeed between 250 and 500 mm (http://www.africanaonline.com/climate.htm) I’m not sure if averaging rainfall for an entire continent is useful, but there you go.
“Even if? Climate change doesn’t exist, right?” Red herring. For the purposes of this argument both Bjorn and Ian are saying it does.
Lastly, accusing Ian of hypocrisy (the act of preaching a certain belief, religion or way of life, but not, in fact, holding these same virtues oneself) is utter BS. Do you think Ian is living a particularly unsustainable existence? Do you know that he doesn’t donate to charities? Or are you in fact confused as to what the term means?
To say that Penny Wong’s 10 million dollar “study” could be much better spent on foreign aid does not require me to have contributed to UNICEF in the past 24 hours.
Thomas, can’t refute the argument so you provide a nearly 50 Year old chart that does not even relate to Ian’s example. Notice 1 month is not the the same as yearly total as Ian postulated.
And who ever said that the climate was static? Ian, you? Luke? Sod? NT? Buehler? Buehler?
Sheesh!!! Circle the wagons, much? Those Indians must really be getting restless. You do understand the metaphor don’t you?
I understood Bjorn Lomborg was an economist and has published a great deal on the economics of implementing CO2 controls. He has definitely concluded quite correctly that even assuming there is such a thing as AGW the cost of precipitous mitigation of CO2 emissions for the possible 40% of the world’s economies to which the Kyoto accord could apply could send the leading economies into bankruptcy. Now that is even more applicable with the global recession which guarantees the 60% of the world which does not have to conform to the Kyoto restrictions will never agree to harming their economies by cutting back on the most cost effective energy source, fossil fuels.
Bjorn Lomborg is not a scientist and has a very scant understanding of climatology or physics, therefore his opinions as an economist are highly regarded and valuable but his opinions as a scientist are worthless.
I will support the research and development of the next generation of energy supply and the implementation of a cost effective solution but for no other reason that the world’s fossil fuel supply will run out in the next 130 to 150 years and we must find a replacement. However CO2 is of great benefit to the world particularly to agriculture and is having no effect on global temperatures. If anyone says it does please prove it and please spare me the endless stream of statistical correlations and computer models they do not PROVE a thing.
Well at least we can all agree on something, can’t we gang?
“Make no mistake: global warming is real, and it is caused by manmade CO2 emissions.”
Er … it could be just me but doesn’t this imply that global warming does exist and that it is man made.
Motty, Louie, we are you when we need you? Say you haven’t been converted, refute this outrageous statement or the world surely is in crisis.
Actually I suspect that you’ve both moved on as you realised the futility of you position. Now you’re searching for the next anti-AGW calumny.
“His critics often simply insult him instead of engaging his arguments.”
Well at least he unequivically acknowledges what the CIS doesn’t, perhaps it’s time to revise the Centres plainly ill-informed stance?
Barry Moore – man you give great denial! I expect that you’d have less qualifications for Lomberg’s opinions if it wasn’t for the statement:
“Make no mistake: global warming is real, and it is caused by manmade CO2 emissions.”
Actually did anyone notice that Lomberg says:
“Make no mistake: global warming is real, and it is caused by manmade CO2 emissions.”
Just want to make sure it didn’t escape anyone notice. I’m always ready to help.
yup – I noticed it – it’s great ploy he uses when he sinks the boot into the AGW myth yet avoids being called a skeptic and it gives him access to media outlets that wouldn’t normally allow a skeptical view.
He’s one of us I hear them say 🙂 he ha.
Janama,
That’s really interesting for you to say that. Do you think he doesn’t acknowledge AGW?
He uses very simple tactics. For example I could say we shouldn’t spend any money on treating non-fatal illness (heck, they won’t die), that money should be spent on fatal illnesses, yes? Jeepers, it’s a no-brainer! Stop funding research on prosthetic limbs, stop treating cataracts, all that money could be spent on cancer (but only fatal ones, not these wimpy benign basal cell carcinomas etc.)
Do see why it’s a dumb argument? Because it sets up a false dichotomy, it assumes that every extra dollar spent is value for money (he doesn’t consider diminishing returns), and he doesn’t address other funding issues – for example military spending. Heck for the price of the last Iraq War you probably could have solved every crisis in the world (by Lomborgs logic).
He’s a charlatan
I agree janama he does a great smoke and mirrors routine so that he gets the media’s attention and gets published with statements like that so I do not blame him. I guess the rest of us are just too darned honest and call a spade a spade so we get branded with all the derogatory insults the IPCC can conjure up without ever receiving any answers to our challenges. I ask for proof and get hot air it is always like that. The statement by an economist on a scientific matter hardly qualifies as proof.
Barry, have you really been insulted by the IPCC? Wow… Must have been really traumatic… Will you ever recover?
Once again Thomas Moore leaves me gobsmacked by his demonstration of articulate bimboism. His statement, “most of the African continent receives much less than 250mm” is true but totally irrelevant. Most of the African continent is the Sahara Desert and that is why nobody lives there.
Take look at the rainfall chart at http://www.catsg.org/cheetah/07_map-centre/7_1_entire-range/thematic-maps/annual_rainfall_Africa.gif and then do a population overlay from http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://na.unep.net/globalpop/africa/images/p00.png&imgrefurl=http://na.unep.net/globalpop/africa/Appendix_6e.html&usg=__7eogNyQpJnFRyKCHTWzAXUwJnw0=&h=747&w=800&sz=405&hl=en&start=3&tbnid=YWnF5foEbtgxUM:&tbnh=134&tbnw=143&prev=/images%3Fq%3DAfrican%2Bpopulation%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-au:IE-Address%26rlz%3D1I7SUNA_en%26sa%3DG.
It is absolutely clear that, aside from the irrigated Nile valley and major cities, African population is distributed in association with rainfall. The other exceptions being extremely high rainfall in tropical forests.
Note that Kenya, where the above mentioned hut is located, has a rainfall ranging from 200mm in the NE to more than 1000mm in the SW. Note as well, all the other countries with high populations that also have rainfall above 400mm. That is, right in the block-hole for my above post.
So get back under that rock, slimeball.
“This is why climate cretinism is such a cruel and expensive joke on humanity. It diverts attention and resources from real problems and trully sustainable solutions.”
Great comment, Ian. Great example of applying Lomborg’s methodology to a specific issue.
Reflect on the mud hut, people.
Wes,
You have fallen for Lomborg’s cheap trick…
It’s not an either/or. He made that up. Why do we have to choose between climate change and feeding Africa? It’s a stupid argument. There is no reason we can’t do both.
Gee, its a ‘false dichotomy’, is it? It’s not a question of ‘either /or’. You groupies are spouting the same line as if you just checked for the Lomborg rebuttal talking points on Team Climate.
So try this: Next time you’re in the pub order a pint of beer, pay for it and then say you want a packet of crisps as well. When the barman asks for more money you can try the ‘false dichotomy’ argument on him. Good luck.
At the risk of mixing beverage metaphors, your argument and three bucks will get you a Cafe Latte.
NT: you said: ” Why do we have to choose between climate change and feeding Africa? It’s a stupid argument. There is no reason we can’t do both”. Yes there is, reducing CO2 emissions will reduce agricultural yields across Africa.
Perhaps we need to look at President Obama’s 2006 book, The Audacity of Hope, rather than his first to get an understanding of his motives for mentioning global warming.
“And then there are the environmental consequences of our fossil fuel-based economy. Just about every scientist outside White House believes climate change is real, is serious, and accelerated by the continued release of carbon dioxide. If the prospect of melting ice caps, rising sea levels, changing weather patterns, more frequent hurricanes, more violent tornadoes, endless dust storms, decaying forests, dying coral reefs, and increases in respiratory illness and insect-borne diseases—if all that does not constitute a serious threat, I don’t know what does.”
Based on this assessment, a solution that does not allow him to be seen to address this “threat” appears unlikely to be adopted by any politician including the new President, who also sees the long term reliance on fossil fuel as a threat to America’s economy and to its national security.
Tim…. Ha ha haaaaaa! Great joke… Yeah… Funny stuff.
Jimmock. Why can’t we do both. For the price of the Iraq War wwe could probably pretty much do anything. It is a false dichotony, AND he doesn’t address diminishing returns.
Here’s the example I gave earlier
He uses very simple tactics. For example I could say we shouldn’t spend any money on treating non-fatal illness (heck, they won’t die), that money should be spent on fatal illnesses, yes? Jeepers, it’s a no-brainer! Stop funding research on prosthetic limbs, stop treating cataracts, all that money could be spent on cancer (but only fatal ones, not these wimpy benign basal cell carcinomas etc.)
Do see why it’s a dumb argument? Because it sets up a false dichotomy, it assumes that every extra dollar spent is value for money (he doesn’t consider diminishing returns), and he doesn’t address other funding issues – for example military spending. Heck for the price of the last Iraq War you probably could have solved every crisis in the world (by Lomborgs logic).
You guys still don’t get it, do you? The days when there was money to burn on any and every scam the bimboscenti could dream up are gone. Check the stock market. Check the retirement and superannuation funds, and watch the property market as unemployment hits 10%.
When will it sink into your tiny brains that THE MONEY HAS BURNED! It is gone, past tense, and any illusion that it has not gone is an illusion maintained by debt, to be paid by the very “future generations” that the green groaners claim to be representing. And if you think you would be doing them a favour by pissing our remaining funds up a vague and indeterminate wall called climate remediation then you had best get used to the feel of tar and feathers.
If you were a responsible manager’s armpit you would “focus on task” as an automatic response. You would know that the closer you get to the problem, the closer you get to the best solution. Instead, you demand that we all follow a sorry bunch of second rate climate Shaman, searching the stars in the vain hope of finding an on-ground solution, bent on making senseless human sacrifices to climate jihad.
Ian…
Don’t be daft, suddenly there is no money in the world? For anything? No, that’s not true.
For you it wouldn’t matter how much money there was you’d never want to spend it on CC. Don’t pretend that there is no money to spend.
Heck it could even work as a stimulus, prompting people to invest (with Govt help).
Lomborg’s “Cool It” addresses the hypocrisy of the AGW measures from an asumption that AGW is real; it is part of Lomborg’s brilliance that he can marry the fact that there are real environmental [in reality lifestyle] issues which have a remedy with the fact that the remedies for AGW are economically pointless; on p 41 of “Cool It” there is a graph which has been extrapolated from Nordhaus’s RICE and DICE models; the graphs shows the pros and cons, costs and benefits of various model alternatives to dealing with AGW; the only alternative which is cost positive is DOING NOTHING, or as Lomborg terms it, the “optimal”; Lomborg’s disclaimer that he “believes” [which is the only active verb appropriate to AGW] is therefore irrelevant and I suspect he knows that.
As I’ve stated here before, I have never viewed the environmentalists with anything except repugnance and contempt ever since I watched a documentary where a group of Eco fascists were standing around a dead African “Elephant poacher” that the park rangers had just shot dead.
This was not long after watching another documentary that showed the elephants from reserves wandering off the parks killing villagers and destroying crops.
In my opinion, Humans come in a long way ahead of Elephants and Hippos where concern and compassion is the measure.
I’d rather see a Coal fired power-station and a highway on the Serengeti than a Game reserve, any day.
Africa needs cheap power and transport, rather than wildlife parks for spoilt elites.
Ian,
The hut is not in Kenya, but rather just over the border, in southern Sudan. The picture was taken by a friend working their recently with refugees.
North western Kenya and southern Sudan would have a low rainfall and also low population.
You are correct to explain that much of Kenya has high rainfall – and also good soils.
My many pictures from my three years in Kenya are as slides – and need to be scanned so I can use them at this blog.
Thanks for that clarification, Jen. But in fact, southern Sudan actually has a higher rainfall than northern Kenya, as the link above demonstrates, mostly 600mm to 1000mm, but highly variable.
The time they would save with effective domestic rainwater capture would substantially improve their capacity to control weeds in their crops and thereby make much better use of scarce soil moisture. A well exercised chipping hoe is worth as much as two megalitres per hectare or 200mm of rain.
It should also be noted that collective watering points are also the centre of much other disease distribution. People gather there, share their viruses and then take them back home to the rest of the family. Dispersed, household controlled water collection and storage will significantly reduce the speed and extent of disease outbreaks.
And at lower rainfall levels the amount of water collected can be maintained by a larger roof area and a larger storage area that is filled less frequently. This water is also much more valuable than water in the 1000mm zone and consequently, more worth the effort. The important thing is that it is an option that empowers those who benefit most and rewards them for their own additional labour inputs.
The IPCC, on the other hand, would leave them helpless but spend 100 times more money to produce an outcome with only 1% of the potential benefit. They stand condemned.
NT: Don’t be daft, suddenly there’s no money in the world? For anything? No, that’s not true.
You knucklehead! Let’s start with the US of A, a $US14trillion economy, oh and what’s this. Let’s start with leverage.
Leverage is a two way street. When the going is good, a small addition to the financial sector’s capital would be multiplied many times. The limit for Wall Street’s investment firms was 12 to 1 until it was increased to 33 to 1 in 2004. So……., if you put $100 into an investment bank, counterparties would soon have $3,300 worth of credits………last year suddenly these same $100s’s less in bank capital forced the banks to reduce outstanding credit by as much as…….you guessed it, $3300s’s. Yep, cash disappears!
Bank of America and Citibank have each received $45billion courtesy of the taxpayer (you know, da gummint). Now let’s delve a little deeper P. 23 of…
http://www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/release/2008-152a.pdf
US BANKS RISKS AT 30/9/2008 (Big 3)
B. of America Citi JPMorgan
Total Assets $B’s 1,831 2,050 2,251
All Derivitives 38,186 39,979 91,339
Credit Default Swaps 3,291 2,467 9,250
Exposure to Default 177.6% 259.5% 400.2%
By Trading Partners
The last thing the world needs now is any further decline in the US economy (want to buy a dud loan?)
Bank of America and Citigroup have 10x the derivitive exposure of that of carbon trading gurus Lehman Brothers.
Credit Default Swaps are in effect bets that financial institutions make on the failure of other major companies. Bank of America and Citi have combined $5.758 trillion (in a $14 trillion economy), which is 60 times larger than the $90 billion so far received in capital infusions from the Treasury Dept.
Time out for a cuppa!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/4339501/Bad-news-were-back-to-1931.-Good-news-its-not-1933-yet.html
Real close to home now!
http://www.demographia.com/dhi.pdf
Then head for the smallest room in the house and ask a simple question – How do you know when a clown has farted?
A. There’s a funny smell.
aurgh! trying to fix up the attempted graph.
US Banks Risks At 30/9/08 (Big 3)
—————B. of America—–Citi——JPMorgan—-
Total
Assets($B’s)—–1,831——–2,050——2,251——-
All Derivitives—-38,186——-39,979—–91,339——
Credit Default—-7,291——–2,467——9,250——
Swaps
Exposure To—–177.6%——259.5%—-400.2%—-
Default By
Trading Partners
Good stuff, WJP, but probably wasted on our little climate cretinous mates. Their grasp of economics extends no further than a begrudging recognition that one little piggy went to market while another little piggy stayed home. They are yet to figure out how that other little piggy managed to have bread and jam, especially when they, and their little porcine mates, have none.
Africa is about 12 million square miles big, Mercator projection makes it look much smaller than it is… As big as Europe and N. America combined. It’s a dry continent not because of AGW, but because of the latitudes it occupies. Only Africa’s equatorial regions are wet and there it is often too wet.
The UN has for decades now been on a futile quest to end hungry and disease in Africa. The reasons it can not even begin to address the problems are myriad and complex. Lack of funding and global food production are not among the reasons for the UN’s failure.
Now NT sez why can’t the UN solve hunger in Africa AND control the weather, bringing climate to an optimum stasis while teaching Africa to feed itself?
The problems are still myriad and complex (now squared) yet the UN is still the same bumbling bureaucracy…NT’s observations are trite and superficial. Lomberg lives in the real world and that’s the world in which he proposes solutions.
Another indicator of disappearing money is when useless tax-grubbing jobs finally get the chop, ‘cos the poor old taxpayer is maxed out, da gummint is bust and the mob is, well, cross!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/4316058/Crisis-meeting-called-on-violent-protest-across-Europe.html
And no NT you can’t rent my vegie patch! But I know where there’s a job shovelling chook poop!
No apologies NT, I can’t help myself. Here comes a storm trooper, his name escapes me for the present, but he wants to belt the crap out of you for not knowing where your money went.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/4363750/Europes-winter-of-discontent.html
Things are indeed hotting up!
Well said, Wes. Nt is out searching for them Big Rock Candy Mountains, y’hear.
Further to where does the money go, sometimes there’s so much money it just won’t go anywhere because no one wants it!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/zimbabwe/4389910/Zimbabwe-dollar-defeated-as-foreign-currency-allowed.html
Lomborg draws conclusions that suit him. His views are rarely based on science, and he ventures into topics that demand to be based on science.
He has done exceptionally well with the Copenhagen Consensus.
He has a knack for being a (gratuitous) presenter that offers some worthwhile concepts while not upsetting the AGW crowd.
The article above does little to further the public discourse.
The metaphor does not appear to show much insight into thought processes that may affect policy.
Ian Mott, you are awesome. I realise that this blog is a couple of months old, but Jen encouraged me to look at it anyway, and so I must comment. 🙂 There are lots of good comments on here, and I applaud you all. Ian is tenacious, and we need more like him.
So when is Obama coming to Kenya anyway? Today we had Joe Biden. We want to see Obama.